VJ Timeline Estimated Approval Calculation Method Updated

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Please look at the graph above. It is 122 days and holding steady from yesterday.

You are thinking of the NOA1 to NOA2 graph:

The Filing to NOA2 graph is 122 days as it should be:

Some Service Centers are taking longer than others to Issue NOA1's so there will be a larger gap between the two in some cases. I hope this clears up the confusion for you .

[PlatyPius 5]

Now average is 99 days CSC.

And my date moved farther again Oct. 10.

????

You're neglecting to think of one thing, though....

It doesn't matter at all.

It's an estimate. Not even an estimate, really. It's a display of an average time for those before you. It's irrelevant.

[YanJeff 0]

Sorry, Yes i did read the wrong graph.

But I still wonder!

Average time front "sent date" (May 21) to NOA2 is 122 days. This would make my "Based on timeline data, your I129f may be adjudicated as early as" Sept. 18?

But my timeline says "Based on timeline data, your I129f may be adjudicated as early as October 10"

That is 142 days!

I am not complaining.

This website is very helpful. With out VJ I would have no one to talk to about this.

Thank you!

PLATYPiUS: "You're neglecting to think of one thing, though....

It doesn't matter at all.

It's an estimate. Not even an estimate, really. It's a display of an average time for those before you. It's irrelevant."

Yes, I know these are only estimates of average times.

I do not feel that this is irrelevant. Or we would not be here everyday checking these times!

[paothao 0]

Previous to today the VJ system used the "filing date" versus the "NOA1" date when calculating an estimate on approval dates. While this worked well, there was variability in the data due to the fact that "mailing time" can vary from one person to the next when sending in paperwork.

To improve the system we now look at the NOA1 date for various forms and use that instead. This should not impact anyone and the only change you will see is improved estimate accuracy.

UPDATE:

I have reverted the estimation method to the "sent on" date for the time being. I agree after seeing the sent-->NOA1 graphs above that this method provides a better estimation when compared to the "NOA1" date. A further improvement of the system would be to allow people to enter the "receive date" from the NOA into the timeline system. I will probably add this soon. Until then the data above suggests that there is only a 2-3 day amount of error when using the "sent by date". There was considerably less variability than I initially thought in the sent-->NOA1 times. I guess regular US mail takes 3-5 days which means that variability is quite low using that time versus using the NOA1 date which the USCIS has admitted to having problems with (late in printing notices).

As a note, I will be adding links in the timeline entry page that will show members how to find their "NOA1" and other dates on Action Notices sent to them from the USCIS .

Feedback is welcome!

[paothao 0]

Previous to today the VJ system used the "filing date" versus the "NOA1" date when calculating an estimate on approval dates. While this worked well, there was variability in the data due to the fact that "mailing time" can vary from one person to the next when sending in paperwork.

To improve the system we now look at the NOA1 date for various forms and use that instead. This should not impact anyone and the only change you will see is improved estimate accuracy.

UPDATE:

I have reverted the estimation method to the "sent on" date for the time being. I agree after seeing the sent-->NOA1 graphs above that this method provides a better estimation when compared to the "NOA1" date. A further improvement of the system would be to allow people to enter the "receive date" from the NOA into the timeline system. I will probably add this soon. Until then the data above suggests that there is only a 2-3 day amount of error when using the "sent by date". There was considerably less variability than I initially thought in the sent-->NOA1 times. I guess regular US mail takes 3-5 days which means that variability is quite low using that time versus using the NOA1 date which the USCIS has admitted to having problems with (late in printing notices).

As a note, I will be adding links in the timeline entry page that will show members how to find their "NOA1" and other dates on Action Notices sent to them from the USCIS .

Feedback is welcome!

I like what you had done for us... Is there a way or link that shows all those people who has received NA1 or NA2 in USCSI or NVC website? In this way, you knew ahead of time that you're about to receive this kinds notice (NA1/NA2 in the mail, instead of just wondering when?

[PlatyPius 5]

PLATYPiUS: "You're neglecting to think of one thing, though....

It doesn't matter at all.

It's an estimate. Not even an estimate, really. It's a display of an average time for those before you. It's irrelevant."

Yes, I know these are only estimates of average times.

I do not feel that this is irrelevant. Or we would not be here everyday checking these times!

Well, that's the difference then.... When Mags and I were going through K1 stuff back in April-Dec 2006, I never bothered checking the timeline thing here. Why would I? It doesn't actually tell me anything important. I checked the USCIS web site every week or so, but that was all.

[Sinergy 3]

PLATYPiUS: "You're neglecting to think of one thing, though....

It doesn't matter at all.

It's an estimate. Not even an estimate, really. It's a display of an average time for those before you. It's irrelevant."

Yes, I know these are only estimates of average times.

I do not feel that this is irrelevant. Or we would not be here everyday checking these times!

Well, that's the difference then.... When Mags and I were going through K1 stuff back in April-Dec 2006, I never bothered checking the timeline thing here. Why would I? It doesn't actually tell me anything important. I checked the USCIS web site every week or so, but that was all.

it doesnt matter, ppl rely too much on the timeline here and will forever ask for it to be accurate and it WONT be. bc this is an immigration forum, NOT USCIS. but, ok. I never stressed over my timeline in here, bc it was way off, but i didnt care, i knew it was based on other ppls NOA1's on this SITE. not every person who filed in November of 2005 when i did. And thats the biggest prob, ppl dont realise that the ppl on this site think just bc joe blow filed 2 days before him and got approved that they will get approved in 2-3 days, when in reality there are 4,000 ppl actually ahead of ya who are not part of VJ.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Ionescu

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Sorry, Yes i did read the wrong graph.

But I still wonder!

Average time front "sent date" (May 21) to NOA2 is 122 days. This would make my "Based on timeline data, your I129f may be adjudicated as early as" Sept. 18?

But my timeline says "Based on timeline data, your I129f may be adjudicated as early as October 10"

That is 142 days!

I am not complaining.

This website is very helpful. With out VJ I would have no one to talk to about this.

Thank you!

PLATYPiUS: "You're neglecting to think of one thing, though....

It doesn't matter at all.

It's an estimate. Not even an estimate, really. It's a display of an average time for those before you. It's irrelevant."

Yes, I know these are only estimates of average times.

I do not feel that this is irrelevant. Or we would not be here everyday checking these times!

The graphs include a moving average and the estimate is a little different to imrpove accuracy as much as possible. Also we add in a little extra time to the estimate based on a few factors (standard deviation of the data we are using for example) to make the estimate more valid for most people (some may of course get it approved earlier). The date we quote is a statistical guess at when a most people with your filing date should be approved by -- which is the best that anyone can use to create an estimate . The Sept 18th date you quoted is based purely on a "mean" value on a moving average which is why it is earlier than the estimate .

[edp333 9]

The date we quote is a statistical guess at when a most people with your filing date should be approved by --

This is a very accurate quote Captain.

I do appreciate your estimates and like reading your analysis. VJ's estimates are the closest I have seen.

[ze22 0]

Hi Captain Thanks for the info.

We finally received our NOA1 but the notice date on the NOA1 is different to the one on the website. On the website as well as when you call the USCIS it states that On June 4th we received your case blah blah blah. The dates on the noa1 in mail are

notice date :2007/08/13

received date:2007/05/15

priority date:2007/05/15

Captain there is a delay of nearly 3 months in my case. I really hope and pray that I don't have any further delays for my NOA2...

[YGandMAT 0]

I don't really think using the NOA1 date makes your estimates more accurate. Quite the contrary actually, especially since the USCIS service centers have experienced a number of data entry frontlog delays a number of times already this year. It some cases, it has been in excess of 2 months according USCIS announcements!

For example, my I130 NOA1 from CSC had a "Received Date" of 4/9/07 but a "Notice Date" of 5/7/07. I mailed the I130 on 3/30/07. While I agree that using the mailing date of 3/30/07 is not helpful in estimating processing time, since USCIS can't be responsible for processing the petition until they have accepted it and stamped its received date, to use the NOA1 date unfairly gives them credit for not being responsible for processing until they generate the NOA1. Under your new system, it would be saying that USCIS was not responsible for processing my petition between 4/9/07 and 5/8/07, which I strongly disagree with, because that one month delay was entirely their fault.

My conclusion: The NOA1 notice date is really meaningless. The delay between the Received Date and the NOA1 date can be substantial, it varies from service center to service center, from filing season to filing season, and this period is a meaningful delay period for which USCIS should be considered responsible. My suggestion is you reconsider this new policy, and rename or clarify that the NOA1 date means the RECEIVED DATE, not the notice date.

Hello Chris Parker,

Something similar happened to me. My I130 NOA1 from CSC does not have a received date (it's blank), but I checked it on line and the "Received date" is 06/06/07 but a "notice date" of 07/10/07 and then I got another NOA1 with a "notice date" of 7/11/07...Yes, I got two NOA1 for the same I130 petition. I mailed my I130 on May 22, 2007. (I mailed it when CSC was having terrible delays in printing receipts due to their "computer glitch", I believed this is what caused me to receive 2 NOA1). So yes, I am confused as to what would make my timeline accurate.

[Bill y Bella 0]

Just because a projection is less than 100% accurate does not make it irrelevant. By definition a projection is a best guess of what will happen based on the available data. It would be foolish to ignore the available data simply because 100% accuracy in a projection cannot be guaranteed. Businesses make huge investments every day based on incomplete data. What other choice do they have?

People have decisions to make. Should they fix up the house immediately or can it wait until next month? Where will they be spending Christmas? Do they have time to polish their language skills at a gradual pace or should they embark on crash course? Should they obtain the police certificates now or is it too soon? The VJ adjudication estimates are extremely helpful in making these types of decisions and personally I am extremely grateful to have access to them. Of course I realize that they are not guaranteed and are subject to change, but without them we would all be depending on USCIS and the information provided there is of very little value.

I agree that VJ members represent only a small percentage of the total USCIS petitioners. However, since USCIS at least attempts to process petitions in the order that they are received, I believe there is a significant correlation between VJ results and overall USCIS results.

For a petitioner to pick out an indivual timeline and base their projections and decisions on that would be foolish. However, to look at the accumulated VJ data and make some projections on that basis seems to me to be a reasonable course of action.

As far as my input into the great NOA date discussion, I believe that consitency is the key. Until recently there was no guidance from VJ as to what dates should be entered so who knows what dates were being utilized? At this point there are some clear instructions so I assume we will all be entering the notice date on our timelines until we are instructed otherwise by VJ.

And to VJ, thank you for creating such a wonderful site. It is a source of valuable information and great comfort to a huge number of people. Keep up the good work!

[Ali e Jeff 0]

I was reading this forum because I saw that in my timeline the day estimated for our adjudication was 17 october, and now is 26 october.

But my case is a little different: I don´t have NOA1, I just have the day that the petiotion packged was sended and the day that USCIS web site say that they receive our petiotion.

My fiance call to USCIS because we don´t have this NOA1 yet, and they say that is not a problem because the case is there in the system already.

So, how accurate can be my timeline with this 2 informations (day that was sended and day that they receive)?? without noa1 in hands, neither by e-mail.

thanks

Ali

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

With the delayed input of NOA1's the send date right now is typically more accurate . The USCIS honors the received date (the NOA1 is not the same).

[Bill y Bella 0]

With the delayed input of NOA1's the send date right now is typically more accurate . The USCIS honors the received date (the NOA1 is not the same).

So why do the timeline instructions clearly tell members to enter the notice date as the NOA1 date? If the receipt date is the best date, shouldn't VJ be instructing members to use that date now so that the results will be as consistent as possible as soon as possbile?

And if USCIS is honoring and presumably prioritizing based on receipt date, why is the projected adjudication date algorithm based on sent date? Can't you change the algorithm and at the same time send out a notice telling everyone to enter the receipt date as their NOA1 date? Within a week most members would have made the change and the results moving forward will be as consistent and logical as possible.

I realize that any changes will make current statistics inconsistent with past statistics, but if there was ever a time when the importance of that was minimized, I think it would be now when processing times are already hugely inconsistent with historical data. At least that applies to the VSC K1's which are the visas that hold my attention at this time.

And while I am on the subject, why does VJ show different total processing times in different places? For instance, look at the total days information for Danielle & Charles here and then compare it to their timeline. The first report shows 145 days in total and their timeline shows they were approved in 142 days from when their petition was sent.

This is not a matter of simply calculating the period utilizing the NOA1 date in one place and the sent date in another because the processing time on the timeline refers to the greatest possbile period (sent to NOA2) but it is the shortest of the two processing times reported.

Thanks for your time. I love the site.